41(F) Sqn Disbandment
My dear old Dad feels the same as Gordon and Grumpy about those of his old wartime Squadrons that have vanished - 206 and 26. Retired since 1978 (after 36 years in the mob) he still goes to his main wartime Squadron reunions and still reads the RAF News. He approves of the 8/23 way of doing things - the fact that the French do it is not a positive point! He would definitely approve of anything that kept 206 and 26 in being!
Like you, he deplores the use of proper numberplates for FTSs and OCUs.
Interestingly, he's not that bothered about the peacetime units he served with, except those he served with that saw active service (eg in Malaya).
I would emphasise that I'm suggesting using Squadron numberplates for flights - which really can be operational units, putting up autonomous formations and missions and even manning rotational detachments.
Like you, he deplores the use of proper numberplates for FTSs and OCUs.
Interestingly, he's not that bothered about the peacetime units he served with, except those he served with that saw active service (eg in Malaya).
I would emphasise that I'm suggesting using Squadron numberplates for flights - which really can be operational units, putting up autonomous formations and missions and even manning rotational detachments.
What you're actually suggesting, then, JN, is that the RAF adopt the model that Sir Frederick Sykes initially intended it (well, the RFC) to have in 1912 when he was setting the service up - had there been enough officers of suitable rank to command the number of units that would have been created under this pattern...
Although a little hard to divine from subsequent documentation (and his autobiography), it would appear that the RFC squadron would have been about eight aircraft strong had there been enough suitably-qualified Majors in the British Army at the time.
Although a little hard to divine from subsequent documentation (and his autobiography), it would appear that the RFC squadron would have been about eight aircraft strong had there been enough suitably-qualified Majors in the British Army at the time.
Top man, Sir Fred. I hadn't realised that my thinking was quite so ancient.
There's also the point that a young Squadron Leader would have the opportunity to shine by throwing himself into some of the non-essential 'relations with Squadron association' and social event stuff, and differentiate himself from his peers.
There's also the point that a young Squadron Leader would have the opportunity to shine by throwing himself into some of the non-essential 'relations with Squadron association' and social event stuff, and differentiate himself from his peers.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Umm, where did I put the Garmin?
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont the Mushroom Sqns already double plate?
How about sticking a 12 ship sqn? Would hurt an individual sqns capability, of course but would put a few more number plates back into use than a 16 a/c sqn would.
How about sticking a 12 ship sqn? Would hurt an individual sqns capability, of course but would put a few more number plates back into use than a 16 a/c sqn would.
That would be the tail wagging the dog! If the right sized major unit is a 16 aircraft Squadron, then the primary unit for operations should have 16 aircraft. But as long as such units are sub-divided into flights, then why not give those flights historic numberplates and since they are commanded by Squadron Leaders, and the bigger units by Wing Commanders, particular designations would seem to make sense.
The Army have done it by cap-badging Battalions, the French do it, and we have arguably the most historic fighter units of the RAF facing disbandment, number-plating training units, or already consigned to oblivion.
With numberplates for Flights you could 'bring back' 19, 92, 56, 74, 41, 54, 208, 17, 20, 35, 50, 83 and even perhaps 249.....
The Army have done it by cap-badging Battalions, the French do it, and we have arguably the most historic fighter units of the RAF facing disbandment, number-plating training units, or already consigned to oblivion.
With numberplates for Flights you could 'bring back' 19, 92, 56, 74, 41, 54, 208, 17, 20, 35, 50, 83 and even perhaps 249.....
If it's commanded by a Squadron Leader, if it's the size of many fighter squadrons in the RAF's glorious history, and if it can deliver more capability than a WWII Wing, then why not let it preserve a Squadron identity, rather than lose that identity for ever?
It's good enough for 'Les French'. It's good enough for 8/23.
I rest mine......
And I don't understand what you mean when you refer dismissively to 'the reputation of a flight'.
It's good enough for 'Les French'. It's good enough for 8/23.
I rest mine......
And I don't understand what you mean when you refer dismissively to 'the reputation of a flight'.
if it can deliver more capability than a WWII Wing,
JN etc,
This idea of multiple Sqn identities for a single Sqn is one that has been tried before, it didn’t work then and it won’t work now.
40/50 Sqn and 47/53 Sqn spring to mind on Canberra and Beverley respectively, they were neither one thing nor the other and were soon dropped.
If you give multiple Squadron identities to what is only ever going to be a single squadron you completely and totally undermine the very principle of Sqn identity, heritage and tradition. A squadron CANNOT ever be more than one squadron, it just won’t work.
Even in my day the idea of a squadron being split down into A and B Flight with it’s own aircraft, air and groundcrew and leadership was virtually non existent. I understand that today this is even more the case with the Flight Commander tending to have exec responsibilities such as Flt Cdr (Training) or Flt Cdr (Operations) etc in addition to their more traditional identity as A or B Flight commander. I know the SH folk are more traditional in this respect but even there you would be mucking about with semantics if you were to give a current Chinook squadron 3 separate squadron number plates.
Modern logistical and servicing trends are in fact going the other way with larger squadron establishments being the trend. The soon to be 101 Sqn with 16 VC10’s is an example of this, as is the Canadian Forces who are merging CF-18 and C-130 squadrons to twice their normal size with one Sqn number plate where there was previously two in a wing.
As for 8 and 23, surely you are wrong in quoting that example as they are entirely separate squadrons who merely share the use of a common aircraft fleet that is centrally maintained and owned, just as the Herc and Nimrod folk do?
Therefore it is NOT good enough for 8/23 as there is no such thing?
A Squadron is a Squadron and a Flight is a Flight.
This idea of multiple Sqn identities for a single Sqn is one that has been tried before, it didn’t work then and it won’t work now.
40/50 Sqn and 47/53 Sqn spring to mind on Canberra and Beverley respectively, they were neither one thing nor the other and were soon dropped.
If you give multiple Squadron identities to what is only ever going to be a single squadron you completely and totally undermine the very principle of Sqn identity, heritage and tradition. A squadron CANNOT ever be more than one squadron, it just won’t work.
Even in my day the idea of a squadron being split down into A and B Flight with it’s own aircraft, air and groundcrew and leadership was virtually non existent. I understand that today this is even more the case with the Flight Commander tending to have exec responsibilities such as Flt Cdr (Training) or Flt Cdr (Operations) etc in addition to their more traditional identity as A or B Flight commander. I know the SH folk are more traditional in this respect but even there you would be mucking about with semantics if you were to give a current Chinook squadron 3 separate squadron number plates.
Modern logistical and servicing trends are in fact going the other way with larger squadron establishments being the trend. The soon to be 101 Sqn with 16 VC10’s is an example of this, as is the Canadian Forces who are merging CF-18 and C-130 squadrons to twice their normal size with one Sqn number plate where there was previously two in a wing.
As for 8 and 23, surely you are wrong in quoting that example as they are entirely separate squadrons who merely share the use of a common aircraft fleet that is centrally maintained and owned, just as the Herc and Nimrod folk do?
Therefore it is NOT good enough for 8/23 as there is no such thing?
A Squadron is a Squadron and a Flight is a Flight.
Nothing to do with 41 Sqn's demise, but I've heard that 54 Sqn name-plate is going to some OCU type outfit at Waddington, with a few E3, R1 and Nimrod aircraft! I believe it will therefore be a reserve sqn, ie 54(R).
Anyone know where 39 Sqn name-plate might go?
H Peacock
PS. 41 Sqn, Have a great party!!!
Anyone know where 39 Sqn name-plate might go?
H Peacock
PS. 41 Sqn, Have a great party!!!
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am proud to have served on 41(F), I have some of my best memories from that time.
We have recently dispanded another fine sqn: 54(F).
The RAF may not have the long history of the other Services, but when you look at sqns like these, what a glorious and fine contribution they have made. And in the summer of 1940 when our country's future was hanging by a thread, the men and machines of these sqns were in the thick of it, dying and fighting and spilling their blood and, in the end, winning. They were fine heroes, but when you speak to them (and I have), they did not know they were being heroic. They just felt lucky if they saw tomorrow.
When I run the country we will reinstate these sqns and the word disbandment will be banned. "Bad Lads army" will be expanded to clean up street crime and the Annual Reception will be called the Battle of Britain Cocktail party. It will all be sponsored by the Chinese.
Jeremy Clarkson will be my minister for political correctness.
We have recently dispanded another fine sqn: 54(F).
The RAF may not have the long history of the other Services, but when you look at sqns like these, what a glorious and fine contribution they have made. And in the summer of 1940 when our country's future was hanging by a thread, the men and machines of these sqns were in the thick of it, dying and fighting and spilling their blood and, in the end, winning. They were fine heroes, but when you speak to them (and I have), they did not know they were being heroic. They just felt lucky if they saw tomorrow.
When I run the country we will reinstate these sqns and the word disbandment will be banned. "Bad Lads army" will be expanded to clean up street crime and the Annual Reception will be called the Battle of Britain Cocktail party. It will all be sponsored by the Chinese.
Jeremy Clarkson will be my minister for political correctness.
What's Jim Carey doing in the cockpit of that pussycat in the 4th piccy?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Coltishall
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAO whowhenwhy
I am perplexed as to where whowhenwhy's elitist attitude is coming from. Groundcrew are an integral part of any Squadron by simply "Sticking us into a wing" is an arrogant and blinkered attitude to take on. Why not have Aircrew Wings and dispose of the Squadron numbers all together, then some historical issues can be laid to rest, like the Squadron of Aricrew that Strafed it's own Groundcrew whilst fleeing or the Squadron who left the Groundcrew to be massacred by the advancing German Army to name but a very small few.
Remember you need us a hell of a lot more than we need you. I'm warming to the use of UAV's..
Anyway, as Jacko says, rather than have an A Flt and a B Flt, you could have a 41(F) sqn and a 54(F) sqn, with a Wing Cdr as OC. A station could have a couple of Wings. The ground crew would belong to the wing, serving both Sqns.
Remember you need us a hell of a lot more than we need you. I'm warming to the use of UAV's..